Demons and gods and the Big Bang oh my!

Arushi asks…

Okay so I am an atheist and I am 13 yo girl from India !! Yes , India but my mom and dad were quite supportive of my act … I read about different stuff from the Internet and then I read about Stephen hawking and all his books and he says that the universe just blurted out of a Big Bang and he’s an atheist the question is who really created the Big Bang or designed humans . Then why are there so many evidences that God is present ?? And even if there isn’t y r demons present and I can’t stop myself from believing all this after I saw some real exorcism tapes !! What happens to our body when we die coz atheists don’t believe in afterlife ?? Is there a hell or heaven ?? Pls answer my queries I’ll be really grateful to and I could answer them when my frnds inquire me 🙂 I am really interested in science , physics , philosophy , paradoxes but I love knowing about myths , demons and legends so pls help me end my search !! Thank you xx

Thanks for all of the questions.

You’re problem here is that you have a little information but it’s obvious you haven’t actually studied them for yourself. I know from having a teenager and from once being one, that studying isn’t something that you like to do unless you have to (there are exceptions of course). You are probably used to people telling you what to think instead of learning things for yourself. I get that. You’ve got a lot going on with school and friends and family, who has time to learn? However, if you really want to begin to understand the world you live in, you’re going to have to do more then just “read about Stephen Hawking”, you’re going to have to actually read his books, or at the very least, listen to some of his lectures. You see, the internet is full of disinformation. You have to be willing to verify claims by doing a little research. I know that seems like a lot to do, but it is infinitely better then relying on what other people tell you about things. Look at it this way, the more you know and understand about the world around you, the clearer your perspective becomes. You can either choose to live blindly, or choose to try and understand. The choice is yours alone either way.

With that said, I’m going to answer your questions in a short manner and encourage you to go and learn these things for yourself instead of just accepting what I tell you.

First there is no evidence for any gods. Evidence for any claim of existence requires objective, verifiable proof. If someone told you there was a teapot circling Pluto, you wouldn’t believe it unless you had hard evidence for it right? Same thing with gods and demons. What people like to do is point to something that they don’t understand and say “god did that”, instead of actually trying to understand it for themselves. For example, for a long long long time people thought that those who screamed out, and shook on the floor and suffered from seizures were “possessed by demons”, but it wasn’t until science came around that we came to understand what causes seizures. Guess what? Demons weren’t involved.

Let’s take for example the “exorcist tapes” you referred too. What science was done to confirm these were people actually possessed be “demons”? How do you know the film wasn’t edited to make you think the demons were real? Why is the default explanation “demons” instead of just saying “I don’t know why this is happening”? An extraordinary claim like “demons” demands extraordinary evidence to verify it. Where is the verification? The James Randie Foundation offers a million dollars to anyone who can scientifically verify their claims of gods and demons and magic and psychic powers. Many have tried, and not one has ever succeeded. Their claims always fall short when studied in an objective manner. You might want to ask yourself why that is?

The rest of your questions are easy. There is no evidence for an afterlife just like there is no evidence for gods or demons. Don’t take my word for it though. Go learn these things for yourself. Start with learning the scientific method (systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.) and learn to apply it to your questions and ask if the evidence you’ve been given is justifiable. Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brain falls out.

I know these aren’t the answers that you were looking for, but the direction I’m pointing you in will allow you to learn these things for yourself instead of relying on others to tell you what to believe. Feel free to read through this website. Use the search function. Read, learn, and try to understand. That’s the best advice I can give you.

The problem is, you just spouted a bunch of stuff based firmly in your own belief and based on no scientific evidence or research of your own. And you started with your conclusion that you are correct and then just said what you believe to be true as if it were fact. You should be ashamed of yourself for leading a young girl astray.

As far as the internet being full of disinformation, your site is high on that list. As one who says that “Evidence for any claim of existence requires objective, verifiable proof.” then please give us your objective, verifiable proof that the big bang occurred or that life sprang up from non-life? When you are able to provide that then you can have a starting point for instructing this child.

Go reread what I wrote. I state clearly, “With that said, I’m going to answer your questions in a short manner and encourage you to go and learn these things for yourself instead of just accepting what I tell you.” So I have no clue where you’re getting “and then just said what you believe to be true as if it were fact”???

And then YOU make a statement as if it were a fact “As far as the internet being full of disinformation, your site is high on that list” which violates your first line “The problem is, you just spouted a bunch of stuff based firmly in your own belief and based on no scientific evidence or research of your own.”

So Tommy, try to actually read what I wrote, and then when you comment again, try really really hard not to contradict yourself.

One example, for instance, where you say “First there is no evidence for any gods.” That’s ridiculous as there is lots of evidence for a God. Should I now post a thousand links pointing to the evidence? Not going there. You can google as well as anyone, read some books, watch some videos, etc. What you really mean is that you accept no evidence for the existence of a God. Let’s assume that the volume in a circle represents the entire sum knowledge of all there is to know in the universe. If we were to be generous and say that you have an astounding 1% of that knowledge then that would mean that there is 99% of all known knowledge that you don’t know. Would it be fair to say that of that 99% that you don’t know that there might be evidence to contradict most, if not all, of what you think you know? Or that in that 99% that there might be evidence that proves there is a God? If you are honest then you’ll have to say yes. And therefore, you are not an atheist at all, but an agnostic; i.e. one who doesn’t know if a God exists, but cannot say absolutely that there isn’t one.

@Tim: “I’d take just one single piece of empirical evidence for it. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve been asking believers for this for more years than I care to count, and have received exactly nothing in return.”

First evidence for the supernatural is your sentient nature, which is spiritual and not physical. Second, is the origin of life, which scientific evidence proves is impossible by natural, undirected forces. If you want evidence of demonic possession, just do some research for kundalini or false holy spirit, particularly on youtube. You can see it in action. More supernatural evidence is seen through Marian visions taking place even today, specifically at Medjugorge and what occurred at Fatima.

As for a more personal testimony to supernatural, I submit my own in which I was an unrepentant sinner for 42 years of my life falling into sexual immorality in the worse possible way and could not escape it no matter what. On my very best day when I was certain I couldn’t be tempted, I challenged Satan and said he couldn’t lure me into that sin again, but then found myself 1 hour later in a massage parlor committing adultery. I don’t even know how I fell again. Yet, when I finally repented by confessing my secret sins out loud, bringing them into the light, and asking for forgiveness and a new heart, I was born again and immediately had a radical life change. I have since been 5 years sober from that sexual immorality by the power of the Holy Spirit. Not even engaging in a single event of sexual self-gratification in all that time. As my life proved, I could not do that under my own power. And as I am working on a ministry to spread the gospel through video games, on multiple occasions I’ve been stumped by programming bugs that just had me whipped. I would bow my head in prayer and ask for God to help me solve the problem. Several occasions, I lifted my head and immediately saw the solution. In one case, something tugged at me to try a path to solve the problem, but everything in me just knew there was no way that path had anything to do with the issue. And yet when I finally gave in and followed that path, the solution was revealed.

Now you have just a few examples, but some honest research will turn up much more.

Again Tommy, go back and read my post. I clearly stated “any claim of existence requires objective, verifiable proof.” which, there is none of. If I were wrong, there wouldn’t be so many religions and faiths. Faith itself wouldn’t even be needed.

And your 1% knowledge argument, is essentially making an argument for the god of the gaps as well as the argument from ignorance. What you’re claiming is that god exists in the realm of things we don’t know. You can claim anything is real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody’s proved it isn’t. That’s not how the real world works. Sorry.

Again, you miss the mark completely. If “any claim of existence requires objective, verifiable proof.” then give me your objective, verifiable proof of the big bang and the origin of life.

And my 1% argument is not actually an argument of god of the gaps or of ignorance. But to claim that you can assert 100% as fact that there is no God from 1% of all knowledge would be an argument from ignorance because you are ignorant of 99% of all knowledge and yet claim you have all knowledge. Let me explain with a hypothetical. For someone to claim there is no gold in China, for example, they would have to have all knowledge of China from every square inch of terrain, the highest to the lowest places, in all rocks, underground, in every persons’s teeth (if they had gold fillings for example), underwater, everywhere. You would literally have to have omniscient knowledge of every square inch of China to say there is no gold. And your claim is the same. You say with only your 1% knowledge that there is no God. You can’t do that without omniscient knowledge. But, back to the analogy, for one to claim there “is” gold in China one would only have to have a small amount of knowledge such as having seen a single piece of gold in one location in all of China.

Now, do you agree you would have to have all knowledge of everything in the entire universe for all time and space in order to make the claim that there is no God? If not, then explain to me how that is illogical or how you can make that claim with 1% knowledge. And remember that giving you 1% knowledge is incredibly generous. One person’s knowledge of all things knowable in the entire universe of space and time would more likely be closer to some super small fractional percent of a percent.

Once more, and for the last time Tommy, (seriously) find a topic that discusses the big bang and the origin of life and we will discuss it there. No one is avoiding you.

Tommy, you say you aren’t committing the argument from ignorance fallacy, and then go on to make the same argument. Are you sure you understand what the argument from ignorance is? (that pesky search function above will help you figure it out.)

And again you’re getting off topic. This article is about learning for oneself and being skeptical. If you wan’t to discuss that, fine. If not, then FIND AN APPROPRIATE ARTICLE. (Is that too hard for you to do?)

OK, I won’t discuss the Big Bang here, but you’re claim that you are not avoiding appears to be false, because I just asked a straightforward question and you completely ignored it. You claim God doesn’t exist when you clearly don’t have all knowledge. Please answer this question. Can you claim that God doesn’t exist without having all knowledge? If you can then reconcile that with the no gold in China analogy and tell me how one isn’t exactly the same as the other. If you don’t answer this question this time around then you are clearly avoiding.

No, you did not answer my question and now you are being evasive. Clearly you refuse to answer the question because you know the answer is not in your favor. The answer is obvious You cannot claim there is no God without only a tiny percentage of all knowledge just like one cannot claim there is no gold in China unless they have absolute knowledge of everything in that country. It doesn’t matter though whether you answer directly or not. The answer indisputable. Getting you to admit it was my goal, but you are being dishonest and refusing to admit the truth. And the truth is, you are agnostic and not atheist because you cannot claim there is no God without omniscient knowledge of all things.

Tommy, I answered your question. Don’t get upset just because you don’t understand it. I’ll tell you what, in an attempt to get this thread back on track, how about you submit your question, and then I’ll take it from there. Then you can’t claim I’m avoiding you. Sound fair?

Once again, this topic is about educating oneself and being skeptical.

Tommy – I’m not sure where exactly Erick “spouted” anything based on no scientific evidence. If you wish to refute his statement that there is no evidence for the supernatural (heaven, hell, demons, gods, etc) then please post some evidence or data that shows that the supernatural does exist. Heck, I’d take just one single piece of empirical evidence for it. I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve been asking believers for this for more years than I care to count, and have received exactly nothing in return.

I don’t know how asking someone to read up on various topics and make objective considerations of that information could ever be considered “leading” someone “astray”…

BTW, I notice that neither you nor Erick addressed the challenge of providing your empirical scientific evidence for the Big Bang or the original of life from non-life. Why don’t we talk about that since that is the basis for your whole worldview.

Tommy – Personal witness testimony is not empirical evidence. Simply put, you could be lying, and there is no way to prove otherwise. Personal experience is not repeatable, not accessible by others, and not verifiable. So that doesn’t count for anything unfortunately.

I’ve already addressed the sentient thing in the other thread, but to briefly repeat here: Sentience does not prove that a divine creature exists. The only thing sentient beings prove is that sentient beings do indeed exist, they don’t prove how they became that way. You are claiming that a goddess (for which you have yet to offer evidence for) is responsible for sentient life on Earth (for which you also have not offered evidence for).

Unless you can offer up something empirical, Erick’s comment that there is no known evidence for the supernatural is accurate and true…

Arushi … its a good thing your parents are supportive of your atheism. Mine were too. Hinduism as a religion tends to be a bit more liberal of agnostic / atheistic views (assuming you are a Hindu, as your name suggests).

But one thing I think you need to ask yourself is whether your atheism is a bit premature at this stage.
Since you are just 13, your experience and exposure to arguments and evidence for and against existence of a God (or gods or demons!) is probably limited and not sufficient to form a position at this stage.
But it is good that you are thinking about these things, in a way.

Ideally, your atheism or theism should be based on more information than just videos of exorcisms, hauntings etc. or reading a few popular science books from Stephen Hawking or any other author.
It should be based on learning more about what religion has to offer, reading more about religious traditions, listening more to both learned theists and learned atheists etc.), learning more about atheism and atheistic traditions as well.

When you read a bit more you will find for e.g. that Hinduism has 6 orthodox schools two of which were actually atheistic in nature! The christian concept of soul matches the Hindu concept of Atman – strengthening the claim that some theists hold that all religions have the same essence.
However you will also find irreconcilable differences between various religions (their speculation of the age of the universe, whether there is one god or many, who to worship, how to worship, how to live one’s life etc. etc. ) that point to perhaps all of these religions simply being made up by people on the fly.

My advice to you would be to learn more about both positions and keep an open but rational outlook at all times. Ask for proof and always think whether the proof offered is good enough.
If a theist offers videos of exorcisms, hauntings … or a psychiatrist writes a book about past life regression or afterlife or dying people seeing light and their loved ones waiting for them on “the other side”, can it be considered to be good enough proof? Can what they say be replicated in lab controlled conditions for e.g. (to get rid of any other effects), are there other simpler explanations possible etc.
If an atheist claims there is no god, are his/ her explanations for some of the above phenomena simple and sensible for e.g.? Could it really be that people seeing light while dying is just due to neurons in the brain firing or misfiring in a particular manner near human death? Could it be that some of the exorcism tapes are doctored/ manufactured and in some of the tapes the victims of demonic possession are suffering from some other psychiatric disease or are in an auto-suggested state?

The more time you take to form your position and the more material you read and gather, the firmer will you be able to stand your ground on whatever position you finally adopt – and not having a position is fine too (better than having one based on low data/ information).

Very shortly, my view (after years of thinking and refining my thinking on these matters) is that religions are an embodiment of our search for answers – our search for our meaning / objective. It is an innate human tendency to want to believe that there is a higher purpose (more than what we see), there is a bigger plan to the universe and that our labors while alive fit somewhere in the broader picture. Religion is an outcome of that tendency / that search. Religion also often provides us relief in times of tragic events – gives us hope, acts as an anchor.
There is another tool that can be used to search for answers however – and that tool is science. And as far as science is concerned, there seems to be no reason to suppose that there is any God. There are certain basic axioms/ rules of nature and that’s it.
There are quite a few unanswered questions – your question about the big bang for example or where do these simple axioms/ rules of nature come from. But the same questions can be asked of religion – for e.g. where does God come from? Religion’s answer is God always has been … science’s answer (as of now) is that the big bang “popped” out of nothing and that is supported by the overall energy of the universe being actually zero (as per present scientific understanding)!
I favor science always over religion because there is often enough physical evidence or mathematical logic behind scientific conclusions. Mathematical logic tends to be exact and precise. Physical evidence is repeatable in the lab. Religion, all too often, relies only on authority, testimony (oral, written or even video captured) or eye-witness accounts.
Though I often feel that the time I spent (from when I was around 16 to around 29) thinking about religion and god was time wasted, but it does help me “get” the religious person’s side of the argument.

I’d really encourage you to find out more about both sides though. Get more info, you’ve only barely started … but do it in the spirit of finding out more, not in the spirit of trying to get to a belief system/ final answer as fast as possible 🙂
It’s one of those questions that does take some time to resolve for oneself, one way or the other.

[Rohit writes]
“I favor science always over religion because there is often enough physical evidence or mathematical logic behind scientific conclusions. Mathematical logic tends to be exact and precise. Physical evidence is repeatable in the lab. Religion, all too often, relies only on authority, testimony (oral, written or even video captured) or eye-witness accounts.”

The problem here is that if one is going to honestly consider both positions then they can’t rely on the same “kinds” of proof or evidence. The supernatural, by its very definition is beyond the natural, outside the natural, outside physical and mathematical. Now if you flat out say that the supernatural isn’t possible then you are left with the natural, but in doing that then you’ve not really considered both sides properly.

Yes, there is a certain amount of faith required to consider the supernatural, especially if you haven’t had any personal experiences yourself. You’ll suffer the syndrome of the doubting Thomas who had to see to believe. But it should be made very clear that there is a great deal of faith/belief involved in accepting a purely naturalistic explanation for everything as well. Even if you can accept a big bang from a singularity, you still have to explain how it got there. Where did the matter and energy come from, and what made it explode? And where did those incredible laws of physics and math come from to begin with?

In a non-multiverse scenario, the chances of a universe like ours existing with precisely the conditions we need for life is so ridiculous to even contemplate. And in invoking an infinite multiverse, you have invented something that cannot be tested and used the concept of infinity which is a fictional quantity that doesn’t exist. For in order to say that you have a quantity, that quantity must be finite. And any finite number, no matter how large, is 0% of infinity.

In the end, both an eternal all-powerful God AND a universe springing forth from a singularity are both concepts equally incomprehensible to the finite, human mind. Both take great faith or belief. Neither can be tested scientifically when you go back as far as you can go.

If no evidence that is eye-witness testimony or experiential can be considered then how does one live their life? Do you ignore everything anyone ever tells you and demand scientific evidence before engaging in any human activity? Because that’s essentially what you would have to do if you took the concept to everyday life. You would ignore everything your parents and teachers ever told you about anything, demand scientific evidence for everything, and refuse to accept anything whereby you haven’t been given that information. You’d likely never leave your house for fear of everything being contrary to what you were told.

If you want to know if God exists, pray to Him with an honest heart and express a desire to know Him and His son Jesus Christ. And seek answers about Him. God promises that He reveals Himself to those who seek after Him.

Tommy – what I have done below is that I’ve gone through your post paragraph by paragraph and given my response to each argument you’ve posed. Maybe some of the responses might seem ill informed / ill formed to you, but I’ve given it a shot.
——————
The problem with saying that the supernatural is beyond natural is that you are giving it a powerful excuse to always be away from any sort of scientific / methodical and exact inquiry.There are a large number of phenomena that were once considered to be “supernatural” and are now considered to be natural … physical “curses” like leprosy for e.g. … so the domain of the supernatural always recedes and the natural always increases. If we always keep giving supernatural the excuse of not being subject to the natural, there is precious little to discuss or discover.

There is little faith required in accepting natural explanations of an exceedingly large variety of phenomena – diseases, the reasons for the vast variety of life-forms we see on earth, star formation and galaxy formation, the various outcomes of the laws of physics and the axioms that those laws are based on.
When we come to the “axioms” the basic truths accepted as facts because no explanation is available currently, that’s the only place where “faith” seems to be required. You can either believe that these axioms are due to a God (which is what religion does) or you can believe that there must be deeper axioms yet and continue to search or try to piece together a logical conjecture of why these axioms are (which is what science does).

Both concepts of God and the big bang arise from some sort of observation – in the case of the big bang the observations are more mathematical and precise. From the red shift of the galaxies, from the background microwave radiation, we can directly reason that there must have been a big bang.
In case of the existence of God, the observations are a bit less precise and more deductive – the world seems to be organized – each creature adapted to it’s environment perfectly. Common sense says that the pattern cannot come out of sheer luck – a watch needs there to be a watchmaker for e.g. … so maybe there is a creator.

It is not easy to demand evidence of everything … and in our normal lives we hardly do it. I don’t demand evidence of a friend when he gives me a reason for being late. We take a lot on faith and trust. But when it comes to fundamental questions about existence, I think it is a must to demand evidence of the kind that science demands. Otherwise one cannot really settle these questions. Seeking answers is what expands our knowledge. Saying that one must take it on faith restricts questioning and reasoning to some extent.

You seem to presume that I did not pray or that I did not pray “correctly”. I used the methods of “prayer” I had given to me according to the religion I was born in … and believe me for a long time I fooled myself into being convinced that they were giving me answers and bringing me closer to God. Atheism for me started more as an experiment – I thought that if I was really getting answers I should be able to act like an atheist and see the silliness of the atheistic side of things. But when I started being more rational and exact and less “woolly” in my thinking – which is something that atheism tends to make you do, even if you try it as an act, I discovered that the “answers” I thought I was getting were not really subject to intense scrutiny.
Is there any reason though why I should pray only to Jesus … and not to Mohammed, or Yahweh, or Krishna, or Buddha or some other? Are Mohammed or Yahweh or Buddha not correct – are they wrong … and since I demand this of everything (being the pernickety atheist that I am), I must demand this of praying to Christ as well … where is the proof that Christ’s “colleagues” are wrong? 🙂

“The supernatural, by its very definition is beyond the natural, outside the natural, outside physical and mathematical.”

If supernatural phenomena are non-physical/natural and outside of mathematics then they would be, by your own definition, unable to interact with the physical world. In that case they may well exist, but for all intents and purposes they are non-existent to the life forms in this universe. This is a perfect example of theists shifting definitions to suit the argument, for it is a primary claim of all theistic religions that the supernatural does indeed interact with the universe. Not only that, they further claim that we are able to utilise that interaction to obtain specific effects. Deists suppose the interaction occurred only initially, and theists suppose occurrence from very rarely, to continuously. But if the supernatural has effect on the universe then, as theists paradoxically claim, we would expect to be able to observe that effect. If we can observe that effect in a systematic way and create controlled conditions in which to make those observations then we would expect to be able to measure that effect and so determine variables such as range, pattern, strength etc. This is, of course, being done every time a properly controlled experimental procedure is performed. So Tommy’s comment that:

“……..you’ve not really considered both sides properly”

is demonstrably untrue. The fact is that after centuries of rigorous research, under highly controlled conditions, we have not once observed a causal effect that is not physical. The only reasoned conclusion, therefore, is that supernatural mechanisms are not affecting our universe. This is emphatically not an act of faith; it is a completely reliable inductively-led conclusion from literally millions of empirical studies. Rohit put it very well:

“……the domain of the supernatural always recedes and the natural always increases. If we always keep giving supernatural the excuse of not being subject to the natural, there is precious little to discuss or discover.”

This is a very important point. If we want to guarantee the viability of our species (and other species we share the planet with) we cannot afford to keep giving supernatural ideology a free ticket. Let’s take the case of Ebola. Tommy’s attitude is that:

“………if one is going to honestly consider both positions then they can’t rely on the same “kinds” of proof or evidence…….Do you ignore everything anyone ever tells you and demand scientific evidence before engaging in any human activity?”

Yet the only evidence we have that Ebola is caused by a virus comes from empirical studies. So, when claims are made that science is wrong and that Ebola is not caused by a virus but caused by ‘spiritual impoverishment’ or ‘demonic possession’ (I haven’t made these up, both have been claimed by Christian churches in West Africa) should we be honestly considering all positions? Shouldn’t we put just as much time, money and other resources into developing anti-viral medications as say, ‘spiritual’ healings? Well, if you’re sane and you say no to that, on the grounds that the evidential basis for Ebola having a physical cause is far too strong, how can you then turn around and say that the evidential basis for biological evolution or the findings of theoretical physics and cosmology are weak and lack common sense? What epistemological grounds do you have to say that? The scientific methodology is the same. The predictive method is the same. The observational and experimental protocols are the same. The statistical analyses are the same. The methods of inductive analysis are the same. You can’t just hive off one field of science as veridical, while considering the next field as implausible and a fairy-tale on the basis of your subjective beliefs:

“especially if you haven’t had any personal experiences yourself.”
That’s your problem in a nutshell. As soon as you discard the scientific method and rational thought patterns you’re left with no independently verifiable method of learning about the universe. All you’re left with are appeals to authority and subjective experiences. Ebola risks becoming perceived as caused by ‘spiritual impoverishment’ and the inflation (not explosion) resulting from the singularity, equally a fairy-tale. Personal experience told three guys who killed 12 people in Paris today that this was what god wanted them to do. Be in no doubt that they are 100% certain that of that. And yet other theists are 100% appalled by their actions. Why? Because there is no independently verifiable method at their disposal to understand what their postulated god might actually want. But they know what he wants.

“Even if you can accept a big bang from a singularity, you still have to explain how it got there. Where did the matter and energy come from, and what made it explode?”

You’re framing this as if it’s a problem for science. It’s not. It’s an incredibly interesting avenue for research. Many theists see this as a problem because they’ve bought an off-the-shelf package of claims about the universe and now they can no longer deal with uncertainty. They have to plug the gaps in knowledge with something, no matter how implausible otherwise, as we see all too often, the edifice of their faith collapses. For many atheists, the uncertainty is a real buzz.
“the chances of a universe like ours existing with precisely the conditions we need for life is so ridiculous to even contemplate.”
How could you possibly know that? I wouldn’t even presume to begin to quantify such a thing. In any, the notion that the universe has precisely the conditions for life is demonstrably not the case. Please watch this video through to the end (it’s all visual, it’s well worth it). Keep in mind this is only our solar system:

Now a thought experiment. Imagine the whole universe, all 100 billion+ galaxies and all the space in between. Say each solar system has one planet teeming with life. Now take a 1km cube and place it at random at any coordinates in the (known, observable) universe. How long do you think it would take for the cube to land on a location with life? What percentage of the universe would be able to sustain life? Well, creationists like to conjure up enormous figures as to the improbability of abiogenesis and so claim it’s impossible. Yet they seem to have no problem claiming that the universe has precisely the right conditions for life, despite the fact that we know for certain that this is not the case, just by looking at the sky.

Of course, if the whole universe exists solely for the purpose of providing a miniscule place for us to live on, it might be vaguely plausible in a fairy-tale kind of way. But it’s an astonishingly arrogant and anthropomorphic sentiment. With, of course, no evidence to back it up.

Tommy writes: [The problem here is that if one is going to honestly consider both positions then they can’t rely on the same “kinds” of proof or evidence.]

No doubt there. Science relies on empirical evidence rigorously gathered and tested through the scientific method and confirmed by others, with open access to everything at all times. Supernatural “proof” doesn’t actually fall within the standard accepted definition of what constitutes proof, and has almost no standard to meet based on what some believers are willing to accept.

[The supernatural, by its very definition is beyond the natural, outside the natural, outside physical and mathematical.]

And yet the supernatural interacts with the natural, doesn’t it? Ghosts make things behind them look opaque or cloudy, meaning they have reflected light, and gods have supposedly spoken to people, which means they used energy to create sound waves to people could hear. Since there are conservation laws in the universe (of which we have ample proof for and have verified over and over again), and such interactions would violate those laws (everything has to be contained in this universe), there is a unresolved conflict there. Now, we have proof for conservation laws, and the big bang, and everything else in science. We have zero evidence (using the standard definition of evidence) for the supernatural. Seems to me it is rather easy to determine what is possible and what is utter nonsense…

[Now if you flat out say that the supernatural isn’t possible then you are left with the natural, but in doing that then you’ve not really considered both sides properly.]

As I pointed out in the other thread, no one is saying it is impossible. What they are saying is that there isn’t any proof for it, and your stance that it exists is baselss and devoid of any data to support your claim.

[But it should be made very clear that there is a great deal of faith/belief involved in accepting a purely naturalistic explanation for everything as well.]

No there isn’t. Every single scientific finding is open for review and verification by anyone at anytime. You do not have to accept a single thing done by others.

[Even if you can accept a big bang from a singularity, you still have to explain how it got there.]

Let’s not confuse the difference between what science has found and what science is trying to find. No one knows for sure where or how the singularity came to be, although there are ideas about it. The topic is currently being investigated. This does not, however, change the other discoveries that science has made. You don’t need faith in the theory of gravity, or germ theory, or the theory of evolution, because you can check those yourself. Just because we haven’t answered all the questions about the singularity does not mean that the Big Bang theory needs faith to be accepted. There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

[Where did the matter and energy come from, and what made it explode?]

It wasn’t an explosion, it was an expansion of spacetime itself, an expansion that it still going on. Your comment shows how little you know about the topic, even though you are trying to use it as a basis for your claim that science requires great belief. This is disconcerting. How can you say science needs belief when you don’t have grasp about things in science???

[And where did those incredible laws of physics and math come from to begin with?]

Who says they had to come from anywhere? I understand that, as a believer, you think there needs to be a reason for everything. In reality there doesn’t need to be a reason for everything. The laws might very well be just a property of this universe, for no particular reason. They just are what they are.

[In a non-multiverse scenario, the chances of a universe like ours existing with precisely the conditions we need for life is so ridiculous to even contemplate.]

We can’t say for certain what the odds are, and since we don’t know what, or even if, the limitations might be on how life can arise from non-life, your statement is more of an opinion than an accurate statistical comment. More to the point, of course this universe has to be just right for us to exist! If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be able to sit here and talk about it, now would we? It doesn’t really matter how the universe could turn it, the reality is it turned out the way it did, and life was able to arise inside of it.

[And in invoking an infinite multiverse, you have invented something that cannot be tested and used the concept of infinity which is a fictional quantity that doesn’t exist. For in order to say that you have a quantity, that quantity must be finite. And any finite number, no matter how large, is 0% of infinity]

I don’t necessarily disagree here. Since nature doesn’t seem to do uniqueness very often, it is plausible that other universes exisst or did exist or will exist. If it can happen here, it can happen elsewhere too. On a side note interestingly it is often believers that talk about their deity creature having been around forever (i.e. infinity) and having infinite knowledge and/or power. I wonder if you’ve ever applied your infinity objection in that direction…

[In the end, both an eternal all-powerful God AND a universe springing forth from a singularity are both concepts equally incomprehensible to the finite, human mind. Both take great faith or belief. Neither can be tested scientifically when you go back as far as you can go.]

The singularity is hardly incomprehensible. Did you know what matter winks in and out of existence all the time? It comes out of nowhere, appears and then disappears. Read up on the Lamb Shift or the Casimir Effect for more detail. Quantum Mechanics has discovered that empty space seems to be more volatile than space with stuff in it. So the appearance of a singularity is certainly not incomprehensible to science. I’m not saying we can fully explain it, but something from nothing actually physically happens in spacetime.

Furthermore, in relativity, gravity is a negative energy. All the other energies in the universe (heat, kinetic, mass, etc) are positive. When you add them all up together you get….zero! It seems that the energy is just “nothing” broken up into various pieces. Interesting, isn’t it? So I don’t think the singularity is anywhere near as impossible or incomprehensible as divine creatures are…

[If no evidence that is eye-witness testimony or experiential can be considered then how does one live their life? Do you ignore everything anyone ever tells you and demand scientific evidence before engaging in any human activity? Because that’s essentially what you would have to do if you took the concept to everyday life. You would ignore everything your parents and teachers ever told you about anything, demand scientific evidence for everything, and refuse to accept anything whereby you haven’t been given that information. You’d likely never leave your house for fear of everything being contrary to what you were told]

People trust that the scientific method works as intended and the advancements that come from scientific discovery are reliable and safe. Every time you take a medicine you are verifying chemistry and medical science. Every time you fly on a plane or step on a brake pedal in a car or turn on the tap, you are verifying fluid mechanics. Every time you use a computer you show the accuracy of quantum mechanics. You may not realize it, but every single day of your life you verify the scientific method dozens of times. We all do. I’ve had chemistry labs and physics labs and other classes where I verified a particular finding of science. I’m satisfied. So are most people. If you need further verification then I suggest you take the time and make the effort to check on these things yourself. Even fundamentalists who think the bible is 100% literal constantly verify the tenacity and accuracy of the scientific method, even though they probably have no clue they are doing it.

All that verifying of science all the time, and people still claim that science is just as much a belief system as religion. What a pathetic lie.

And all someone like myself asks in return is one, just one, scrap of empirical evidence for anything supernatural. Science constantly being proven, and yet there is exactly zilch that proves supernatural…Science verses religion may be the most one-sided, lopsided argument in the history of the human race.

[And yet the supernatural interacts with the natural, doesn’t it? Ghosts make things behind them look opaque or cloudy, meaning they have reflected light, and gods have supposedly spoken to people, which means they used energy to create sound waves to people could hear. Since there are conservation laws in the universe (of which we have ample proof for and have verified over and over again), and such interactions would violate those laws (everything has to be contained in this universe), there is a unresolved conflict there. Now, we have proof for conservation laws, and the big bang, and everything else in science. We have zero evidence (using the standard definition of evidence) for the supernatural. Seems to me it is rather easy to determine what is possible and what is utter nonsense…]

I think maybe I’ve missed asking one big question to you and others here who are asking for proof of the supernatural. From what I am hearing, there appears to be no possible evidence that would be considered evidence “for” the supernatural. Only that you would consider it in the realm of something we have yet to discover. So, my question is, what evidence can you think of would convince you that the supernatural exists? Also, you referencing ghosts seems to contradict your belief position. If you don’t believe in the supernatural,and thus don’t believe in ghosts, then how can you state that ghosts reflect light in a certain way. That’s like saying Santa Claus weighs 250 lbs, but you don’t believe he exists. Btw, there are demons and familiar spirits, but not ghosts of the dead.

[As I pointed out in the other thread, no one is saying it is impossible. What they are saying is that there isn’t any proof for it, and your stance that it exists is baselss and devoid of any data to support your claim.]
Your claim is baseless that my claim is baseless. We can say that back and forth all day, but neither makes it so. The incredible specified complexity, synergy, and irreducible complexity of all living things is a huge basis for what I claim.

[No there isn’t. Every single scientific finding is open for review and verification by anyone at anytime. You do not have to accept a single thing done by others.]

Here you are just being dishonest or a tiny big ignorant. All science starts with a belief. What do you think an hypothesis is? It is a scientist’s belief on how something works that he has yet to test or prove. And last time I checked, even the big bang theory still has opponents, opposing theories, and a considerably long list of problems that are unresolved. Thus there is still a belief aspect. To deny that is dishonest.

[Let’s not confuse the difference between what science has found and what science is trying to find.]
The confusion seems to be yours. I am well aware of what “scientists” have found and what “scientists” are trying to find. Note how I’ve corrected your use of science as an entity again. You need to watch that one. You are making a logical fallacy but implying that anyone who doesn’t believe secular scientific conclusions is not a scientist. You may be surprised to know that Sir Isaac Newton, for example, was a God believing, creationist. Who would deny that he was a scientist. You?

[No one knows for sure where or how the singularity came to be, although there are ideas about it.]
Correct. And this is where we get back to the belief factor. Without evidence of where it came from, you only have a belief that it happened at all. It’s an idea about what might have been and there are numerous problems with the theory. It’s not a settled matter. There was a recent competing theory of the origins of the universe from the secular world I might add, that involved a kind of white hole cosmology, quite different from the big bang. And the paper is published and passed peer review. If that theory were correct then everything you think you know about the big bang would be overturned. And not even by creation scientists.

[The topic is currently being investigated. This does not, however, change the other discoveries that science has made.]
Neither does it make allowance for the fatal flaws in the theory. They are still there. Are you really trying to tell me that you don’t know that there are problems with the big bang theory that are unresolved? That you think every piece of the puzzle is absolutely settled? Be honest.

[You don’t need faith in the theory of gravity, or germ theory, or the theory of evolution, because you can check those yourself.]
Indeed. And so far, the theory of evolution (microbes to man) has not checked out at all. As I pointed out with the Dr. Ainsley Chalmers quote and before with the DNA requires DNA video by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. Those, in fact, settle the matter against evolution, unless you only consider evolution to be adaptation and speciation.

[Just because we haven’t answered all the questions about the singularity does not mean that the Big Bang theory needs faith to be accepted.]
If it happened 14.6 billion years ago and current evidence doesn’t align perfectly with expected data and no one was there to see any of those 14.6 billion years, how can you make such an absurd claim?

[There is plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.]
There is some evidence, if interpreted a certain way, that could be in favor of a big bang theory. But there is far more that contradicts it. You really should do some research on this. And it isn’t just non-secular sources that know there are problems with the big bang. If you at least admitted that it may not be the correct solution then that would be something. But it is established fact in your mind, despite the fact that there isn’t even agreement in the secular scientific community on it.

[It wasn’t an explosion, it was an expansion of spacetime itself, an expansion that it still going on. Your comment shows how little you know about the topic, even though you are trying to use it as a basis for your claim that science requires great belief. This is disconcerting. How can you say science needs belief when you don’t have grasp about things in science???]
I do know that it was a supposed expansion so please don’t try to attack me on this. I took college astronomy and received an A. I know what it’s all supposedly about. I apologize for saying explosion. I thought you’d realize what I meant.

[Who says they had to come from anywhere?]
Pretty much everyone except you apparently.

[I understand that, as a believer, you think there needs to be a reason for everything.]
Interesting position since that’s exactly what you’re trying to tell me. That “science” can explain everything. What I’ve actually said is that “science” can’t explain everything.

[In reality there doesn’t need to be a reason for everything. The laws might very well be just a property of this universe, for no particular reason. They just are what they are.]
Doesn’t seem like a reasonable position to me.

[We can’t say for certain what the odds are, and since we don’t know what, or even if, the limitations might be on how life can arise from non-life, your statement is more of an opinion than an accurate statistical comment.]
Actually, there are some pretty good mathematical guesses on just what the probability would be if we consider our universe and assume a big bang. It is some ridiculous number that far exceeds even the number of atoms in the entire universe. Look it up.

[More to the point, of course this universe has to be just right for us to exist! If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t be able to sit here and talk about it, now would we?]
I love this reasoning simply because it’s so funny. That’s like someone asking you how you survived the holocaust and you say “If I hadn’t survived the holocaust, then I wouldn’t be here to tell you about it.” It explains nothing. Cute though.

[It doesn’t really matter how the universe could turn it, the reality is it turned out the way it did, and life was able to arise inside of it.]
The reality is that you assume what you’re saying is correct because that’s the conclusion you started with.

[On a side note interestingly it is often believers that talk about their deity creature having been around forever (i.e. infinity) and having infinite knowledge and/or power. I wonder if you’ve ever applied your infinity objection in that direction…]
Now it’s my turn to tell you that you don’t know what you’re talking about. You thought you were schooling me on the big bang “explosion” and you were right, although I knew it was a supposed expansion. Anyway, we say that God is eternal. Eternal is a state of being not a quantity. And infinity is a fictional quantity.

[The singularity is hardly incomprehensible. Did you know what matter winks in and out of existence all the time? It comes out of nowhere, appears and then disappears.]
I think you would have to have a lot more scientific knowledge to make that claim. I know “of” this, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the matter was created and destroyed. Perhaps it pops in and out of various dimensional spaces. In any event, it’s matter that is somewhere in some dimension. So, where did it come from and why was it there to begin with. Let me know when you can wrap your head around that.

[Quantum Mechanics has discovered that empty space seems to be more volatile than space with stuff in it. So the appearance of a singularity is certainly not incomprehensible to science.]
Stuff is stuff and space is a place. Where did they come from? I don’t think your mind can comprehend that.

[I’m not saying we can fully explain it, but something from nothing actually physically happens in spacetime.]
Where did the space/time come from?

[Furthermore, in relativity, gravity is a negative energy. All the other energies in the universe (heat, kinetic, mass, etc) are positive. When you add them all up together you get….zero!]
That is merely hypotheses and no where near proved. The only reason that’s believed is because we can’t account for all the matter/energy in the universe that isn’t observed. Perhaps that mysterious energy is God upholding his creation.

[It seems that the energy is just “nothing” broken up into various pieces. Interesting, isn’t it?]
It’s interesting that telling stories about ideas that aren’t proven it somehow fact to you. Other than that, not so interesting.

[People trust that the scientific method works as intended and the advancements that come from scientific discovery are reliable and safe.]
In experimental science, yes.

[Every time you take a medicine you are verifying chemistry and medical science. Every time you fly on a plane or step on a brake pedal in a car or turn on the tap, you are verifying fluid mechanics. Every time you use a computer you show the accuracy of quantum mechanics. You may not realize it, but every single day of your life you verify the scientific method dozens of times. We all do.]
True, and yet not one of those relies on evolution or the big bang being fact. Name one scientific invention that depended on the theory of evolution or it couldn’t have been created. Take the challenge.

[I’ve had chemistry labs and physics labs and other classes where I verified a particular finding of science. I’m satisfied. So are most people.]
Here you appeal to a majority. Majorities have many times been wrong in the history of science. Epicycles anyone? And there is quite a growing list of scientists who doubt things like Darwinian evolution.

[If you need further verification then I suggest you take the time and make the effort to check on these things yourself.]
I’ve been thoroughly studying this for many years now.

[Even fundamentalists who think the bible is 100% literal constantly verify the tenacity and accuracy of the scientific method, even though they probably have no clue they are doing it.]
They have no clue what they are doing? I think the universities that awarded them doctorate degrees would argue otherwise.

[All that verifying of science all the time, and people still claim that science is just as much a belief system as religion. What a pathetic lie.]

I have to refer you once again to what an hypothesis is. It is a belief in how something works. The scientific method starts with pure belief. And unless something is settled almost absolutely, it doesn’t move from hypothesis to theory. And there is no way the theory of gravity equates to the same level of confidence as the theory of evolution. All that we know about biology says that Darwinian evolution can’t happen.

[And all someone like myself asks in return is one, just one, scrap of empirical evidence for anything supernatural. Science constantly being proven, and yet there is exactly zilch that proves supernatural…]
So, here I ask once again, what you would constitute as evidence since much as been provided and still you claim none has been provided. If I knew what you would accept as evidence then we could proceed. I think, as I said before, that there really is “no” evidence that would be allowed because you would simply say it is due to some as yet unknown mechanism. So, unless you can provide to me what evidence would suffice, there’s nothing I can do for you.

The Dissent from Darwin Statement is a typically dishonest example of a creationist organisation trying to fool the scientifically illiterate in believing that evolutionary theory is in peril and that many scientists are creationists. The statement reads:

“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

First, read the statement they signed very carefully. It’s intentionally worded in a very ambiguous fashion. How, by any stretch of the imagination does that statement refute the notion of biological evolution? Nothing in that statement does so. Note what it doesn’t say: It doesn’t say that common descent is wrong. In other words, it doesn’t actually state that evolution is wrong. This is where the dishonesty kicks in. Creationists misleadingly use the terms ‘Darwinism’ and ‘Darwinian theory’ as synonymous with biological evolution. Yet the two terms haven’t been equated for at least 80 years. The statement was initiated in response to a PBS documentary series in the USA that included the perfectly truthful phrase:

“All known scientific evidence supports evolution.”

The DI dishonestly adapted that phrase in the email they sent out to potential signatories, claiming that the phrase used by PBS was:

“All known scientific evidence supports Darwinian evolution.”

These are two very different statements. They must have been aware that there are very, very few people working in the field today who would labels themselves as ‘Darwinian’ or claim to be working within the field of ‘Darwinian theory’. These are historical terms that existed from a time when natural selection was the only mechanism we were aware of that effected change in lineages. Creationists childishly cling onto the terms as pejorative.

When molecular and population genetics became the primary focus of research the whole field on to what is now generally labelled the ‘Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory’. Random mutation and natural selection are now merely part- mechanisms involved in biological evolution. The vast majority of scientists working in the field would argue that mechanisms such as genetic drift, recombination, gene-gene interactions, horizontal transfer, epigenetics, phenotypic plasticity, and founder effects are just as important, and in some instances far more important, than Darwinian natural selection. They would have no problem disagreeing with the DI’s bogus phrase, “All known scientific evidence supports Darwinian evolution.” Most would attest to the notion that natural selection does not fully explain the complexity of life. The general public, however, would be unaware of this. Which is what the DI were banking on.

Second, to make matters worse, about 75% of the signatories have no qualifications at all in biology, one third of these are qualified in engineering or physics. At last count, less than 3% of those who signed the statement have ever published anything on biological evolution. I doubt that any of those that have would deny common descent (even Michael Behe, probably the most well known creationist author, fully accepts that humans are a descendant lineage of the primate family). The list amounts to no more than a bunch of unqualified people voicing their opinion about a technical aspect of a field in which they have never contributed. If a similar collection of people with no qualifications or research record in particle physics signed a statement dissenting from a particular technical aspect of quantum theory, physicists the world over would rightly laugh.

Third, the claim that these signatories are somehow representative is ridiculous. It has been calculated that if all the signatories from the United States were indeed fully qualified to sign the statement, even they would represent only about 1 in 200 of all the American scientists eligible to sign. In 2005, after the statement had been issued for 4 years, a counter statement was issued against the scientific basis of Intelligent Design. It was open to be signed for only 4 days. In that short time it amassed 8x as many signatories as the DI statement had in 1461 days.

Fourth, when investigators from the NCSE tried to contact signatories at their listed academic affiliation many of them could not be found. A number of so-called scientist signatories have never even worked in scientific research after earning their qualification and have fraudulently listed the university which had awarded their degree as a current affiliation. Others have only ever taught and have no peer reviewed publications at all.

Fifth, some of the bona-fide biologist signatories have since complained that they signed the statement in good faith on the understanding that its purpose was to intensify academic debate. They were misled. They were not aware that it was going to be used for publicity purposes for a creationist organisation. Some have since declared that they aren’t creationists. However, the DI refuse to retract their names.

Sixth, while a number of people who signed the DI statement have since changed their minds and signed counter statements, not a single instance of the opposite has been recorded.

Seventh, a satirical counter statement supporting evolution, Project Steve, was initiated. It currently has 1330 signatories, a third more than the DI statement. Over 60% of these signatories have qualifications and publications specific to biological evolution. Every eligible Nobel Laureate has signed as have 11 members of the National Academy of Sciences. No DI statement signatories have these credentials. But you what’s the most embarrassing thing for the DI? Project Steve can only be signed by scientists named Stephen/Stephanie (and variations in European languages).

Eighth, obviously the whole thing is a gimmick. A pathetic appeal to authority that just doesn’t exist. If evolutionary theory really was wrong, why on earth would you need a list of dissenters? All you’d need is one strong dataset from one researcher. Or a pre-Cambrian rabbit. The fact that this hasn’t been forthcoming after 150 years of research says it all.

“There is little faith required in accepting natural explanations of an exceedingly large variety of phenomena – diseases, the reasons for the vast variety of life-forms we see on earth, star formation and galaxy formation, the various outcomes of the laws of physics and the axioms that those laws are based on.”

How can you accept star and galaxy formation when, for example, no one has ever seen a star form? Or that the supposed science for how stars formed is both problematic and, in some cases, circular reasoning (e.g. gas clouds collapsing into stars due to another star’s explosion and thus needing a star to begin with). And here is a great quote from a biologist who used to believe in evolution and what he says about evolution of life on earth:

“Genes tend to mutate/degrade with time, not get better,” he said. “Mutations, even small ones, are very rarely, if ever, really beneficial and even when they are, they generally either involve loss of function and/or are in some way a corruption of information. For example, a mutation that breaks down the efficiency of molecular pumps for a bacterium to draw nutrients from its environment means that it will better survive certain antibiotics. But it is a damaged bacterium, so when the antibiotic is removed, it will be less able to cope than its non-resistant fellows. Sure, one can put an insulin gene into a microbe and get it making lots of insulin but it will still be a microbe. No amount of detailed genetic manipulation in the laboratory will turn a microbe into a worm or a fly. So it certainly won’t happen spontaneously even over millions of years. And natural selection won’t change that. We can see it happening, but the effects are trivial compared to this downhill tendency in our DNA. So, to me, evolution or Darwinism just can’t happen.” –Dr. Ainsley Chalmers

“When we come to the “axioms” the basic truths accepted as facts because no explanation is available currently, that’s the only place where “faith” seems to be required. You can either believe that these axioms are due to a God (which is what religion does) or you can believe that there must be deeper axioms yet and continue to search or try to piece together a logical conjecture of why these axioms are (which is what science does).”

What you fail to recognize or admit is that the reason secular scientists goes that path is because they have rejected God and the only other alternative. And I must point out that you are using a logical fallacy when you say that science does something. Science is a process, not an entity.

“Both concepts of God and the big bang arise from some sort of observation – in the case of the big bang the observations are more mathematical and precise. From the red shift of the galaxies, from the background microwave radiation, we can directly reason that there must have been a big bang.”

You seem to be under some misinformation. The CMB has been a failure. When measured, it fell well outside predictions and thus they altered their expectations to attempt to make it fit their prediction. The recent “smoking gun” evidence turned out to be simply dust. Red shifts of galaxies doesn’t prove a big bang at all. In fact, research is showing that the universe may actually have a center, which is contrary to what the big bang theory supports. Distant galaxies that are mature is against the big bang, the horizon problem still exists unless you invoke cosmic inflation, which has yet to be proven, lithium rich stars, planets that spin backwards, volcanic activity on IO, comets, etc.

“In case of the existence of God, the observations are a bit less precise and more deductive – the world seems to be organized – each creature adapted to it’s environment perfectly. Common sense says that the pattern cannot come out of sheer luck – a watch needs there to be a watchmaker for e.g. … so maybe there is a creator.”

Seem is far too weak a word to use here. If you look at something like Honda’s Asimo robot, you would probably be amazed at what that thing can do and that represents decades of brilliant design and engineering. And yet the human body and mind are many orders of magnitude more advanced. And yet you think that “time” somehow allowed it to come into being. If only there is enough time, you can believe it. That is an incredible faith position, especially considering the statement made by Dr. Ainsley Chalmers, which is scientifically accurate, by the way. I challenge you to refute what he says on the science of the matter.

“But when it comes to fundamental questions about existence, I think it is a must to demand evidence of the kind that science demands.”
If you start with this assumption then you are preceding from a false premise. Again, supernatural is beyond the natural. How can you explain something outside of nature from within nature? The point is, if you consider that the supernatural may exist then you must also accept that you are not going to be able to prove it scientifically. It’s like trying to explain the design and manufacture of cars only knowledge of design and manufacture of books and using a language not known by the person you are explaining it to. Maybe a weird analogy, but you get the idea.

“Otherwise one cannot really settle these questions.”
And yet you seem to have settled for yourself and I for myself. Are you sure your statement here is correct?

“Seeking answers is what expands our knowledge. Saying that one must take it on faith restricts questioning and reasoning to some extent.”
But if you’ve excluded one possibility from the outset then you are only looking for answers using a system that can’t explain the reality. See how far you get trying to figure out how computers are made by reading a book on how to build a rocket. What answers are you going to get?

“You seem to presume that I did not pray or that I did not pray “correctly”.”
I was really speaking to the young girl who asked the question, but it could apply to anyone.

“But when I started being more rational and exact and less “woolly” in my thinking – which is something that atheism tends to make you do, even if you try it as an act, I discovered that the “answers” I thought I was getting were not really subject to intense scrutiny.”
Which is why it is written:

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.”
Romans 1:22-23

“Is there any reason though why I should pray only to Jesus”

Yes, because Jesus said:

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.”
John 14:6

And the Bible, history, eye-witness account, testimony, prophecy, and scientific evidence all align with scripture. And Jesus affirmed Genesis and the global flood.

“Are Mohammed or Yahweh or Buddha not correct – are they wrong”
Yahweh is the God of the Bible who foretold the coming of Jesus and affirmed he was His son. As for the others, yeah, they are wrong.

“where is the proof that Christ’s “colleagues” are wrong? :)”
Covered that in earlier response.

“……..the statement made by Dr. Ainsley Chalmers, which is scientifically accurate, by the way. I challenge you to refute what he says on the science of the matter.”

I can’t let this get one past. He’s talking complete rubbish and you’re gullible enough to believe him. Like Jonathon Sarfati he’s an intelligent guy getting away with telling lies to a scientifically uneducated creationist audience like yourself because they both know it’ll get lapped up.

There are 10 different types of mutations observed in genomes. The idea that all 10 are deleterious in nearly every instance on every gene/chromosome in every genome of every species is pure fantasy. Chalmers must know that in the vast majority of cases there is no way to ascertain if a novel mutation is deleterious. Rarely is a new gene variant deleterious to the point that it is immediately obvious in an individual organism (the rate is about 1.5 per 100). This sort of analysis needs to be done at the level of population genetics. For example, a potentially or actual deleterious mutation can become advantageous if environmental exigencies change. A potentially or actual beneficial mutation can become deleterious if the environment changes. A neutral mutation can become fixed in the population by genetic drift and centuries or thousands of years later become advantageous or deleterious. Deleterious mutations are often removed from the genome by selective breeding or sexual selection processes. Many deleterious mutations would not be heritable. The effects of a deleterious mutation can be offset by the presence of specific allele variants on other genes etc.

Chalmers is talking simplistic nonsense. Here are some more refutations, all from humans (there are 1000s more examples from other species and bacteria, fungi etc):

The genome of each new born baby has something in the region of 100-130 mutations that don’t exist in either of the parents genomes (assuming a father of 30 years old at conception; the older the father, the higher the number of mutations). That’s something of the order of 800 billion new mutations (in only about 23000 genes) per generation at the current (and growing exponentially) world population. If even half these mutations were deleterious Homo sapiens wouldn’t be a viable species. If Chalmers is right our genome would be fried. We would be extinct.

The HLA-A leukocyte antigen gene has 2432 separate allele variants. After the alleged flood the maximum number of HLA-A alleles that would be possible would have been 10 only (i.e., two each from Noah, his wife and their sons’ three wives). This figure assumes heterozygosity. It is possible (though statistically highly unlikely to the point of impossibility) that each of Noah’s sons carried separate mutations for the HLA-A gene, in which case the number of alleles present would be a maximum of 16. If Chalmers Biblical creationism is true then in a mere 4000 years or so the number of alleles in the HLA-A gene must have increased from 10-16 to 2432. This rate of deleterious mutation is biologically impossible without the species incurring mutation rates in every generation so large as to make Homo sapiens non-viable.

Mutations in the OPN1MW and OPN1MW2 genes result in greatly enhanced colour vision

Mutation in the HLA-A leukocyte antigen gene results in decreased resistance to HIV

Mutation in the MSTN gene results in increased muscle mass and limb strength

Mutation in the CCR5Δ32 gene result in protection against HIV (homozygous) and delayed progression to AIDS (heterozygous)
Mutation in the Apo-AIM gene results in reduced cardiovascular disease risk

Mutation in the LRP5 gene result in increased bone density and strength

Mutation in the HbC gene result in 29% reduction in susceptibility to contracting malaria (homozygous) and 93% reduction (heterozygous) both without any increased risk in sickle cell anaemia

Mutation in the LCT gene allowing the digestion of milk after weaning

I just don’t understand why you listen to a handful of deluded creationist crackpots when you have plenty of good quality people doing cutting edge research in the field, many of whom are Christians.

[If supernatural phenomena are non-physical/natural and outside of mathematics then they would be, by your own definition, unable to interact with the physical world.]
Not correct and it shows that you really don’t comprehend the scenario. Here is a simple analogy. I can build a virtual 3D world inside a computer that exists only within the electronics of the computer itself.
I can even interface with this world using a computer monitor, keyboard, and mouse. And I have sophisticated editing tools where I can move to anyplace in the 3D world, pick up objects, throw them, destroy them, create more, etc. I can even simulate weather, physics, and so on. If I change the physics parameters then gravity can suddenly be 2x what it is or 1/2 normal. I can do all this from completely outside the system using only an interface into the system. I am not part of the simulation at all. I am completely and wholly separate from it and am not contained within its space either. And the little virtual character sin my world, if they could think and reason, would have no way to prove I existed at all. Unless, of course, I communicated with them and told them how I built the computer and the world they live in. Do you see?

[Tommy’s comment that: “……..you’ve not really considered both sides properly” is demonstrably untrue.]
Just the analogy I gave you above should show you that you probably didn’t ever consider that and so my statement is not untrue. Unless you can honestly tell me that you considered the scenario I outlined.

[The fact is that after centuries of rigorous research, under highly controlled conditions, we have not once observed a causal effect that is not physical.]
If I interacted with my virtual world and caused it to rain, what evidence would my virtual characters have of knowing I instigated it? And yet I did. Really think about this. I don’t think this has ever occurred to you.

[The only reasoned conclusion, therefore, is that supernatural mechanisms are not affecting our universe.]
As I’ve been showing you in this response, you would be wrong if we were considering my virtual world, which is a very good analogy of a God to Universe simulation.

[This is emphatically not an act of faith; it is a completely reliable inductively-led conclusion from literally millions of empirical studies.]
And those studies say that Darwinian evolution can’t happen. Did you miss that part? If it can, then give me the mechanism that can do it? Because it is a scientific fact that we have observed no process that “can” do it. And certainly not in the time given.

[“……the domain of the supernatural always recedes and the natural always increases. If we always keep giving supernatural the excuse of not being subject to the natural, there is precious little to discuss or discover.”]

truth be told, we don’t really need to know any of this stuff to live and have happy lives. It’s interesting and fascinating, but not necessary. It was man’s search for God-like knowledge that led to the fall of man to begin with. Tell me truthfully, just how much of all the technology you have do you really need to actually survive? It wasn’t that long ago that we didn’t even have electricity, cars, planes, computers, phones, and so forth. And yet humans lived just fine and were quite happy as well.

[This is a very important point. If we want to guarantee the viability of our species (and other species we share the planet with) we cannot afford to keep giving supernatural ideology a free ticket.]
Here you are completely inconsistent with your worldview and belief system. If evolution is true then you should be on a mission to wipe out competing species, not to nurture them. What happens if there are chimps someday that are born with a mutation that somehow sparks an increase in intellectual capacity or the ability to speak? We could have a Planet of the Apes on our hands. If you want to insure the survival of the human species, you should be advocating wiping out the apes and dolphins even. Anything that might someday become smarter than us.

[…how can you then turn around and say that the evidential basis for biological evolution or the findings of theoretical physics and cosmology are weak and lack common sense?]
As far as evolution, the biology indicates it can’t happen. You need to provide the mechanism whereby evolution from microbes to man can happen and prove it. That hasn’t been done yet.

[That’s your problem in a nutshell. As soon as you discard the scientific method and rational thought patterns you’re left with no independently verifiable method of learning about the universe. All you’re left with are appeals to authority and subjective experiences. Ebola risks becoming perceived as caused by ‘spiritual impoverishment’ and the inflation (not explosion) resulting from the singularity, equally a fairy-tale.]
All very interesting for a philisophical debate, but none of your reasoning proves evolution or the big bang or even attempts to address any of their numerous problems. Nor have you yet to even acknowledge that either theory actually has any problems or flaws when most scientists will at least admit that. The same scientists that you support for your information.

[Personal experience told three guys who killed 12 people in Paris today that this was what god wanted them to do. Be in no doubt that they are 100% certain that of that. And yet other theists are 100% appalled by their actions. Why?]
Because Satan is the god of this world and has deceived a great many people into following after false gods and false religions and worldly philosophies.

[You’re framing this as if it’s a problem for science. It’s not.]
Of course not, but you have rejected God and have no alternative but to believe it happened no matter what.

[It’s an incredibly interesting avenue for research.]
It’s a waste of time in my opinion. The only reason I think it’s interesting at all is because I know that the more we learn, the more problems will come to surface for these theories. And that is indeed what is happening. I think more problems have come to light in recent decades than in a long time. Junk DNA anyone? Vestigial organs? Yeah, those were “fact” too not long ago. Tell me, how long does something remain a fact? Until it’s proven wrong? And if it’s proven wrong then was it ever fact to begin with?

[They have to plug the gaps in knowledge with something, no matter how implausible otherwise, as we see all too often, the edifice of their faith collapses.]
Funny you should say this. At least the theist admits there are gaps, where you don’t seem to. And those gaps for you are often filled with ridiculous and implausible theories and yet you accept those just fine. Oort cloud anyone? Cosmic inflation? Dark energy? Etc. They are so desperate to prove it right that they claim “smoking gun” evidence for the big bang without even waiting for a peer reviewed paper to be published.

[How could you possibly know that?]
Research it. It’s based on the various constants in our universe that have to be just precisely so in order for it to all work. And if those constants were off by even a tiny fraction then it would all collapse.

[I wouldn’t even presume to begin to quantify such a thing.]
Smarter people have done it already so no worries. Just google it.

That wasn’t a video, but I went through it. Very annoying presentation, but it is great for showing just how unique we are in the entirety of the universe.

[Now a thought experiment. Imagine the whole universe, all 100 billion+ galaxies and all the space in between. Say each solar system has one planet teeming with life.]
Gotta stop you right there. I can’t say that because I don’t believe it. I don’t believe that any other place in the entire universe has life. And just imagining it isn’t going to make it so. The mathematical odds of life arising even just here is ridiculous and for it to happen all over the place? Even more ridiculous.

[Now take a 1km cube and place it at random at any coordinates in the (known, observable) universe. How long do you think it would take for the cube to land on a location with life?]
Never unless it landed on earth.

[What percentage of the universe would be able to sustain life?]
Just earth.

[Well, creationists like to conjure up enormous figures as to the improbability of abiogenesis and so claim it’s impossible. Yet they seem to have no problem claiming that the universe has precisely the right conditions for life, despite the fact that we know for certain that this is not the case, just by looking at the sky.]
Um, we’re here right? You’re confusing the idea of conditions being right for life and life being everywhere as being synonymous. They aren’t.

[Of course, if the whole universe exists solely for the purpose of providing a miniscule place for us to live on]
It is. For the Bible says that the heavens declare toe glory of the Lord and the work of His hands. That example of the universe and its scope and how incomprehensible the scale and distances are and the stars and galaxies out there is to show you just how amazing our God is. And if you aren’t amazed by the universe then there’s something wrong with you.

[But it’s an astonishingly arrogant and anthropomorphic sentiment. With, of course, no evidence to back it up.]
What’s arrogant is to claim that we as finite human beings with limited comprehension can possibly understand an eternal, all-powerful God who created us. I am humbled by God’s great creation. Not arrogant about it.

[The examples of bacterial resistance to antibiotics and radiation resistant fungi alone completely destroy Chalmers’ argument.]
Actually, he covered that in his statement and it’s accurate. Show how those bacteria became anything but bacteria. Or show that they gained something that wasn’t already there. Go on.

[There are 10 different types of mutations observed in genomes. The idea that all 10 are deleterious in nearly every instance on every gene/chromosome in every genome of every species is pure fantasy.]
I don’t see where he says that. The problem is that you aren’t getting anything new. You need to show something being created that’s new, not something that is losing information or switching something on/off that was already there. Where’s that example?

[For example, a potentially or actual deleterious mutation can become advantageous if environmental exigencies change. A potentially or actual beneficial mutation can become deleterious if the environment changes.]
Like the benefit of losing wings on a windswept island? So that the insect doesn’t get blown out to sea and eaten? Yep. It shows loss of information. You need to show, for example, something gaining wings, not losing them. Never been done yet. Prove me wrong.

[A neutral mutation can become fixed in the population by genetic drift and centuries or thousands of years later become advantageous or deleterious. Deleterious mutations are often removed from the genome by selective breeding or sexual selection processes. Many deleterious mutations would not be heritable. The effects of a deleterious mutation can be offset by the presence of specific allele variants on other genes etc.]
You still need to show these mechanisms gaining functional information not simply scrambling or losing. That has not been shown, ever. Point to the example that proves that wrong.

[The genome of each new born baby has something in the region of 100-130 mutations that don’t exist in either of the parents genomes (assuming a father of 30 years old at conception; the older the father, the higher the number of mutations).]
An interestingly enough, they continue to be just humans with some variation.

[That’s something of the order of 800 billion new mutations (in only about 23000 genes) per generation at the current (and growing exponentially) world population. If even half these mutations were deleterious Homo sapiens wouldn’t be a viable species. If Chalmers is right our genome would be fried. We would be extinct.]
Actually, that is one of the big problems for evolution. The genome IS, in fact, in decay, as you so amply pointed out. And if we have been around as long as evolution claims then we’d be extinct. Why not see the evidence for what it is instead of what you want to believe?

[The HLA-A leukocyte antigen gene has 2432 separate allele variants. After the alleged flood the maximum number of HLA-A alleles that would be possible would have been 10 only (i.e., two each from Noah, his wife and their sons’ three wives). This figure assumes heterozygosity. It is possible (though statistically highly unlikely to the point of impossibility) that each of Noah’s sons carried separate mutations for the HLA-A gene, in which case the number of alleles present would be a maximum of 16. If Chalmers Biblical creationism is true then in a mere 4000 years or so the number of alleles in the HLA-A gene must have increased from 10-16 to 2432. This rate of deleterious mutation is biologically impossible without the species incurring mutation rates in every generation so large as to make Homo sapiens non-viable.]
I don’t know if any of that is accurate or not and certainly don’t accept your conclusions, but it’s interesting to note that our current human population is perfectly consistent with a starting point of 8 people about 4,400 years ago and population growth model simulations you can find on the web. If evolution were true, even accounting for plagues, and other factors, the population would have to be vastly different. Human population argues against your evolutionary story.

[Mutations in the OPN1MW and OPN1MW2 genes result in greatly enhanced colour vision]
You’ll have to cite a source for this so I can properly address it. I’m sure there is nothing to support microbes to man in this mutation either.

[Mutation in the HLA-A leukocyte antigen gene results in decreased resistance to HIV]
You’re working backwards not forwards. This doesn’t show how microbres can become men.

[Mutation in the MSTN gene results in increased muscle mass and limb strength]
More mass and strength is just more of the same. It’s not sprouting wings or growing feathers, or adding gills, or making lungs, or hearts, or feet, or anything else. It already had muscle, it didn’t add a muscle capability.

[Mutation in the CCR5Δ32 gene result in protection against HIV (homozygous) and delayed progression to AIDS (heterozygous)
Mutation in the Apo-AIM gene results in reduced cardiovascular disease risk]
Cite a source. Again, not impressed. Sounds like something already there got switched on/off. And probably causes some other deficiency as is typical of these examples.

[Mutation in the LRP5 gene result in increased bone density and strength]
Same response as the muscle mass thing. Bones got more dense, it didn’t create bones.

[Mutation in the HbC gene result in 29% reduction in susceptibility to contracting malaria (homozygous) and 93% reduction (heterozygous) both without any increased risk in sickle cell anaemia]
Cite source.

[Mutation in the LCT gene allowing the digestion of milk after weaning]
Cite source. The information alone doesn’t impress.

[I just don’t understand why you listen to a handful of deluded creationist crackpots when you have plenty of good quality people doing cutting edge research in the field, many of whom are Christians.]
No true Christian would refute God’s holy word. It is you who are listening to deluded individuals.

Here’s a challenge for you. Not only to show you how incredible and ludicrous the claims of evolution are, but to also show you that not as much is known about biology as you think. And without much more knowledge, its claims are weak.

So, here’s the challenge:

Using some computer simulation, take the DNA of some base multi-cellular organism from the tree of life and demonstrate the step-by-step mutations that must occur for that organism to turn into the next thing on the tree of life. You decide the starting organism and go from there. Now, I’m aware that you probably don’t have the resources to do this yourself, so find a scientific resource that has a simulation like this and I’ll check it out. And I don’t just mean stories of how it might have happened. I want actual, step-by-step, mutation-by-mutation changes to explain exactly how that fish went from a fin to a leg sort of thing. Precise, DNA changes by mutation.

If you say no such simulation exists or has even been attempted then I ask why not? If we know how these things happen, and with all the supercomputing power we have on this planet, why not just show the world how it happened? That’s certainly doable isn’t it?

Fine, give me the starting genome. Oh, you don’t have it? Well there is a major problem. How to you suggest we proceed without a starting place? Why don’t you just give the rate of mutation, or at least the percentage of mutations that were beneficial? Whoops, since mutation rate AND beneficial percentage are both random we can’t possibly know when each mutation happened, now can we.

You starting to see why that asking for that is a waste of time? Why don’t you do this instead Tommy. All life on Earth shares some of the same DNA. All of it. Why don’t you come up with a different hypothesis that explains that, and then test it and prove it? If you don’t have the resources, why hasn’t some creationist pseudo-scientist attempted it then? I’ll tell you exactly why Tommy – there is no other explanation. Evolution is the only and best theory to explain how life went from the first simple creatures to life as we know it today. Plain and simple. And it is backed by a literal mountain of evidence. 250,000 different species found in the fossil record, and over a billion (with a B) fossils overall since the time of Darwin. Confirmation of the theory by multiple independent fields of research from geology to paleontology to biology to morphology. Then genetics came along and reconfirmed the entire tree of life already well established by all those other fields. Live studies of many succeeding generations of creatures from E Coli to guppies to fruit flies where evolution has been seen in action. 150 years worth of tens of millions of man hours collecting and analyzing data and re-testing and verifying the theory time and time again. All that effort with all that data for such a long time, and nothing has come along to refute it Tommy. Nothing.

You obviously don’t comprehend the sheer magnitude of what you are up against. Your cultist websites can claim there is no data and evidence for evolution all they want, but the simple fact is all they need to do is publish ONE lousy scientific paper showing that evolution can’t be true, and the theory of evolution would have to be discarded for something else. ONE lousy paper Tommy. And they can’t even do that.

You keep reading the nonsense your creationist masters slop up on the internet all you want, and believe it to if you want to remain purposefully ignorant, but at the end of the day you are still left with zero proof for anything supernatural and the truth that evolution is real, ongoing, and has existed since life first started on Earth…

[Fine, give me the starting genome. Oh, you don’t have it? Well there is a major problem. How to you suggest we proceed without a starting place?]
Too funny. You’re the one claiming all the evidence. Now surely these amazing biologists who believe in evolution must have databases full of genomes that we can analyze and do simulations like this from. Or are they just really speculating and telling just-so stories as to how these things evolved? Which is it? You see, the point was to show you just how little knowledge they actually have. But if you can find this information and simulations that show the step-by-step mutations then please do. Else, admit the knowledge is sorely lacking.

[Whoops, since mutation rate AND beneficial percentage are both random we can’t possibly know when each mutation happened, now can we.]
You can imagine that the universe started from a singularity, what kind of atoms and quantity were in it, how it expanded faster than the speed of light for no apparent reason and then stopped, how stars and galaxies formed, how complex living organisms somehow evolved from a chemical soup in an imagined early earth atmosphere, but you “can’t” imagine, with the help of computing power and mathematical models, what the steps would be to go from one genome to another one? With the kind of imagination evolutionists have with their stories, this should be easy.

[You starting to see why that asking for that is a waste of time?]
Not exactly a waste of time. But certainly I know that such knowledge doesn’t exist because the field of evolutionary biology doesn’t have much knowledge at all to begin with. It’s mostly speculation and fictional stories to explain what we see. The evidence isn’t there. If it were, this data and simulations like this would be out there right now, but they aren’t. Best we have are stories that say things like “could have”, “probably”, “might have”, “we suspect” and so on. No hard data. This would be hard data to prove it could happen. So where is it?

[Why don’t you do this instead Tommy. All life on Earth shares some of the same DNA. All of it. Why don’t you come up with a different hypothesis that explains that, and then test it and prove it?]
Why do I need to? It’s already there. All life came from a common designer who used common parts and concepts like any intelligent designer does. Like a car manufacturer who uses the same parts for different cars. That’s just basic design and engineering.

[If you don’t have the resources, why hasn’t some creationist pseudo-scientist attempted it then?]
You only call it pseudo science because it doesn’t agree with your belief. Why would we try to create a scientific model for something we know won’t work? But for those who believe it works, it should have been done already. Wouldn’t that silence any dissenters right there? And imagine all that could be learned from creating such models. The applications would be staggering. But, of course, it can’t happen so it’ll never be done.

[I’ll tell you exactly why Tommy – there is no other explanation. Evolution is the only and best theory to explain how life went from the first simple creatures to life as we know it today. Plain and simple.]
You almost see the light. Almost, but not quite. You see, you say that it’s the best explanation because you’ve rejected the true explanation that an intelligent creator God did it. When you do that then you have no choice but to find an explanation such that you have. You’ve eliminated the only right answer and you are left with ridiculous fairy tales. You “assume” life went from simple forms to all that we see today, but it never happened at all. The only thing that has happened is that kinds of animals have adapted to different environments over time and that life has an incredible built-in diversity. That’s all.

[And it is backed by a literal mountain of evidence.]
No it isn’t. Saying it doesn’t make it so.

[250,000 different species found in the fossil record, and over a billion (with a B) fossils overall since the time of Darwin.]
Fossils don’t help you. They hurt you. See #9 on this page:

[Confirmation of the theory by multiple independent fields of research from geology to paleontology to biology to morphology. Then genetics came along and reconfirmed the entire tree of life already well established by all those other fields.]
Again, saying it is so doesn’t make it so. These fields confirm nothing.

[Live studies of many succeeding generations of creatures from E Coli to guppies to fruit flies where evolution has been seen in action.]
They abandoned the fruit fly experiment and went to computer simulations because it never showed what they wanted it to show. It didn’t demonstrate the things they needed for evolution to work. Tell me how many fruit flies became a different kind of insect? E coli? really? You need to check that one again. The bacteria could feed on citrate or something like that? When looked at closely, it was merely a switch being turn on (or off. I don’t remember). The ability was already there. That’s like saying when you flip on a fan switch that the fan evolved to have a function for blowing air.

[150 years worth of tens of millions of man hours collecting and analyzing data and re-testing and verifying the theory time and time again. All that effort with all that data for such a long time, and nothing has come along to refute it Tommy. Nothing.]
That’s simply not true. Never has it been shown that new functional information can be added to the genome on the order of lungs, wings, gills, etc. All you ever see is downhill stuff and variations of the same thing. You still have yet, and no one ever has, shown one concrete example of the mechanism that actually does it. Look, if nothing ever came along to refute it, then why do these 800+ Ph.D. scientists say otherwise?

And they aren’t just creationists, not by a long shot. The fact that this site exists and people have signed the statement, says that you are telling an outright lie.

[You obviously don’t comprehend the sheer magnitude of what you are up against.]
I know precisely what I’m up against. People blinded to the point of ignorance for their rejection of God. To be so incapable of seeing something so obvious is quite amazing to see.

[Your cultist websites can claim there is no data and evidence for evolution all they want, but the simple fact is all they need to do is publish ONE lousy scientific paper showing that evolution can’t be true, and the theory of evolution would have to be discarded for something else. ONE lousy paper Tommy. And they can’t even do that.]
You just show your ignorance here. Evolution has become so pliable and so supple that it cannot be falsified in their eyes. And no evolutionary controlled media source is going to publish a paper that speaks out against their sacred theory. But plenty of papers have been published otherwise that easily refute evolution. Do some reading. There is a whole movement now among some secular scientists to openly admit that evolution can’t work the way they say it can and to start looking at alternate explanations. The fact you are ignorant of this is astounding.

[You keep reading the nonsense your creationist masters slop up on the internet all you want, and believe it to if you want to remain purposefully ignorant, but at the end of the day you are still left with zero proof for anything supernatural and the truth that evolution is real, ongoing, and has existed since life first started on Earth…]

Seriously. All you have to do to totally shut me up is actually demonstrate the mechanism that causes this evolution from single cell to man over millions of years. Yet, you can’t do that. No simulations, no experimental evidence. Just stories of how it might have, could have, probably happened.

Tommy writes: [How can you accept star and galaxy formation when, for example, no one has ever seen a star form?]

We know stars exist, correct? We’ve found predicted remains of old stars, such as white and red dwarves, and black holes, correct? We’ve seen large areas of collected hydrogen gas, some with stars in them, correct? We know, for example, that there had to be an old star that seeded our Sun, because there is iron in the Earth, and iron has to come from stars. Stars take 10 million years, give or take, to get together and fire up. Sorry if someone hasn’t been around for the last 10 million years to see it. But everything predicted about it has been seen in one stage or another.

Let me guess. Your theory is that a divine creature created them all. Ok, great, prove it. Better yet, prove that the divine creature exists first (we are still waiting on that don’t forget), since you need a verified divine creature before you can start crediting that critter with star formation. Science has seen all the steps predicted. How much of your claim have you seen? None, eh?

You starting to see a pattern here Tommy? Every time you try to undercut science, you fail, mostly because you take your creationist website’s word for it and don’t bother to investigate the matter yourself. You fail because you don’t have accurate scientific information yet try to make scientific objections. And, of course, since you have exactly nothing that shows the supernatural to be real, the only thing you are left with is trying to undercut science, even though that does nothing to prove what you believe…

[Or that the supposed science for how stars formed is both problematic and, in some cases, circular reasoning (e.g. gas clouds collapsing into stars due to another star’s explosion and thus needing a star to begin with).]

in 2012 Yasuo Fukui from Japan seemed to figure out the issue with larger stars. Objects like the Sun were never an issue, just larger stars. He is from Nagoya University. You can google his paper and read about it. This information, by the way, took me about 2 minutes to find with a simple google check. I didn’t even remember his name, so I googled “scientific problems with star formation” or something like that. Surely your creationist website updated itself and let you know there isn’t an issue anymore, right? I’m stunned that didn’t happen…you’d think a bastion of science like creation.com wouldn’t mislead people like that…huh, go figure.

[ –Dr. Ainsley Chalmers]

Here’s what the article at creation.com said immediately before his quote: “His mind raced through the implications of natural selection. He pondered the likelihood of a huge gain (1,000-fold) of genetic material from a microbe (4 million base pairs) to man (3 billion) and concluded biology just doesn’t work that way.” Did he do any experiments? No. Did he review data from others? No. Did he do anything besides “ponder”? No. That’s all he did Tommy. He reached a conclusion based on no data. But at least he is familiar with genetics and has scientific training in the field….WHOOPS! He doesn’t? You mean his PhD in biology is totally unrelated to genetics? So, in other words, he is a smart dude with a PhD who has no business commenting on genetics and genetic mutation, and who has zero data or evidence to back up his claim? What a stunner…

The dead giveaway, at least for me, was that sentence that came before his quote. Because genome size and complexity are not related. I bet your creationist masters didn’t tell you that, did they Tommy. There are plants whose genome is twice as big as humans. There are microbes with more base pairs when homo sapiens. So this little statement is a dead giveaway that the believer that wrote it is purposefully misleading you, the innocent cultist, into thinking that we came from a creature with that size genome. There are millions of microbes Tommy, with all manner of different sized genomes. Notice they didn’t name a specific microbe, even though the number of base pairs mentioned is not at all representative of the microbial kingdom. Remember how I previously warned you about lack of detail and misinformation at these websites? This is exactly what I was referring to.

To add to Tim’s comment re genome size and complexity. Notice how Tommy frequently uses the term “microbes to man”, as if human beings/Homo sapiens (i.e., both men and women, Tommy) are somehow the culminating peak of genetic and informational complexity?

There’s a flowering plant (Paris japonica) with a genome 50x larger than the human genome. There a species of fish freshwater fish in Africa (Protopterus aethiopicus) with a genome 30x larger than the human genome. Species of onion and wheat have genomes 5x larger than the human genome. There’s yeast with a genome 2x larger than the human genome.

The human genome is about the same size as corn, so why not refer to “microbes to corn” evolution? According to the wisdom of every young earth creationist crackpot I’ve ever read there’s no such thing as DNA that does nothing. They claim all DNA is fully functional. Even the repetitive sequences are there for a purpose. And why wouldn’t it have some purpose? It has been meticulously and purposefully designed by a perfect being who’s the veritable master of his craft. There are no errors in his game.

So I await to see what wonders to behold that we have yet to observe in species such as flowering plants, yeast, wheat corn and onions, not to mention fish. God must have his reasons for giving them such mindboggling genetic complexity and associated informational content. If, as creationists love to say, DNA is analogous to a computer code (it’s not; in any meaningful way), who knows what potential that onion’s software has. What God’s plan is for it. Bill Gates should be told.

[We’ve found predicted remains of old stars, such as white and red dwarves, and black holes, correct?]
Yes, and no. Black holes are still not proven to exist. In fact, a recent secular scientific paper refutes the notion that they exist at all, which is what I’ve believed for a long time now. You are either unaware of this or hiding it so it doesn’t expose another weakness in what you believe.

[We’ve seen large areas of collected hydrogen gas, some with stars in them, correct?]
Bright spots maybe. Not sure about stars. But certainly not evidence that one was forming in there.

[We know, for example, that there had to be an old star that seeded our Sun, because there is iron in the Earth, and iron has to come from stars.]
You assume that stars seed other stars. And also that iron comes from stars. Sorry, but that’s just an assumption based on your preconceived conclusion that it all happened from a big bang in the first place. The existence of different stars and elements in no way provides proof whatsoever of where they came from. You can only claim that some elements can be produced in star explosions. beyond that, no.

[Stars take 10 million years, give or take, to get together and fire up.]
No. Not if they were created as-is by God. Again, you “assume” they formed on their own. Just assumptions. No proof.

[Sorry if someone hasn’t been around for the last 10 million years to see it. But everything predicted about it has been seen in one stage or another.]

You know this isn’t true. No one has proven that a gas cloud can collapse and form a star. The physics just don’t work.

[Let me guess. Your theory is that a divine creature created them all.]
Not a theory. I know this to be true.

[Ok, great, prove it. Better yet, prove that the divine creature exists first (we are still waiting on that don’t forget), since you need a verified divine creature before you can start crediting that critter with star formation.]
If I knew everything about God and could prove his existence in the way you demand then I would have to BE God. Sorry, can’t do that. But all the evidence and testimony and prophecy and witness we have aligns with that being truth.

[Science has seen all the steps predicted. How much of your claim have you seen?]
Actually, as I’ve shown you, no it hasn’t seen all of it. It hasn’t seen an Oort cloud either, which is used to explain away the comet problem.. It can’t explain mature galaxies at great distance, nor the problem of spiral galaxies retaining their shape for so long, or lithium rich stars, and so on and so on. Why don’t you or someone else responding here just once admit that their are holes, flaws, and gaps in these theories you cling to. Because if their aren’t any then that means you already know everything and why do any more research. Seriously, Be honest.

[None, eh?]
Plenty. The promises told to me by my God in the Bible have come true for me. Every single one of them. And as far as I’m concerned, the power of those promises is supernatural for I could not do them on my own power.

[You starting to see a pattern here Tommy?]
Yes. Every time I point out the blatant facts to you, you wriggle out of it by telling more lies and denying the truth. That’s really clear.

[Every time you try to undercut science, you fail,]
Um, no. I haven’t failed once. And you and others have still yet to address a great deal of what I’ve said. It has been ignored or wriggled out of.

[You fail because you don’t have accurate scientific information yet try to make scientific objections.]
So, if what I say contradicts prevailing scientific theories then it’s not accurate? I guess that’s certainly true. But those who opposed prevailing scientific theory that the earth was flat were correct and those that opposed epicyles were correct, and so on. Science would never be where it is today if people didn’t go contrary to the prevailing scientific theories. I thought you understood what science was? No?

[And, of course, since you have exactly nothing that shows the supernatural to be real, the only thing you are left with is trying to undercut science]
Again, I’ll ask the question. What scientific evidence would you even accept that there is supernatural? You’d probably just label it something that sounds scientific and accept it as a natural law. For example, if you found a cave deep beneath the earth and there were thousands of tiny rocks on the cave floor that seemingly just randomly popped in and out of existence, you’d probably invent some superquantum physics branch of science and give this phenomenon a name and call it a natural process. After all, you see it happening and it’s real so it’s natural. But if you actually have some evidence you would accept then let me know and I’ll see if that might be out there somewhere. Otherwise stop asking for it.

[even though that does nothing to prove what you believe…]
You see. Even if there was such evidence, you’d discount it. Are you willing to admit now that the theories you believe are not falsifiable? That’s just not science.

[in 2012 Yasuo Fukui from Japan seemed to figure out the issue with larger stars. Objects like the Sun were never an issue, just larger stars. He is from Nagoya University. You can google his paper and read about it. This information, by the way, took me about 2 minutes to find with a simple google check. I didn’t even remember his name, so I googled “scientific problems with star formation” or something like that. Surely your creationist website updated itself and let you know there isn’t an issue anymore, right? I’m stunned that didn’t happen…you’d think a bastion of science like creation.com wouldn’t mislead people like that…huh, go figure.]
Actually, creation.com is very diligent with updating its information and making sure they are up to date, but they can’t be on top of everything all the time. Sometimes they need people to bring these things to their attention so they can look into it. I’ll probably do that. I read one link I found on it. I’m not impressed at all.

[Here’s what the article at creation.com said immediately before his quote: “His mind raced through the implications of natural selection. He pondered the likelihood of a huge gain (1,000-fold) of genetic material from a microbe (4 million base pairs) to man (3 billion) and concluded biology just doesn’t work that way.” Did he do any experiments? No. Did he review data from others? No. Did he do anything besides “ponder”? No. That’s all he did Tommy. He reached a conclusion based on no data.]
You need to listen to what you write sometimes. The guy is a Ph.D. with the knowledge of how biology is supposed to work and all the experimentation done to date that is supposed to prove it. Naturally, he could look at what that research shows and says and make the conclusion he made. After all, that’s the only conclusion any reasonable person could make if they really honestly evaluated it and had an open mind to a creator God.

[But at least he is familiar with genetics and has scientific training in the field….WHOOPS! He doesn’t? You mean his PhD in biology is totally unrelated to genetics?]
And what’s your Ph.D in? Oops. Maybe you aren’t qualified to even talk about this subject. What were you thinking? Quite often major discoveries are made for people outside their own fields. Nothing new there. But I see why you’d want to discredit him instead of his argument. That’s a typical logical fallacy. A tactic used when you can’t refute what the argument actually says. Ad hominem I believe.

[So, in other words, he is a smart dude with a PhD who has no business commenting on genetics and genetic mutation, and who has zero data or evidence to back up his claim? What a stunner…]
Careful. What’s your Ph.D. in again?

[There are plants whose genome is twice as big as humans. There are microbes with more base pairs when homo sapiens. So this little statement is a dead giveaway that the believer that wrote it is purposefully misleading you, the innocent cultist, into thinking that we came from a creature with that size genome.]
I know that and wasn’t mislead at all. There is much more to his argument than that and I’m pretty sure you’re taking that out of context.

[There are millions of microbes Tommy, with all manner of different sized genomes. Notice they didn’t name a specific microbe, even though the number of base pairs mentioned is not at all representative of the microbial kingdom. Remember how I previously warned you about lack of detail and misinformation at these websites?]
Maybe you should be examining the lack of detail in the evolutionary story. Where is all the information on how it actually happened? Nope. Just a bunch of wishful thinking, just-so stories of how it might have, could have, probably happened on a fictional early earth in a galaxy far far away. Get real.

[See the pattern emerging again by the way?]
Yep. I feel sorry for you. I really do.

[I’ll post more in another post, this one is getting long…]
Way too long.

Tommy writes: [I think maybe I’ve missed asking one big question to you and others here who are asking for proof of the supernatural. From what I am hearing, there appears to be no possible evidence that would be considered evidence “for” the supernatural.]

Any empirical evidence will do. So far all I’ve seen is two things. You’ve mentioned your personal experience, which I have no way to verify. You’ve also claimed that sentience proves a divine critter exists, and I’ve already explained that the existence of something does not in itself prove its origin. It’s really simple Tommy. What else do you think you’ve got?

[Also, you referencing ghosts seems to contradict your belief position. If you don’t believe in the supernatural, and thus don’t believe in ghosts, then how can you state that ghosts reflect light in a certain way.]

You’ve never read someone’s ghost story and what they saw? The very definition of ghost is a nebulous or opaque apparition. I referred to ghosts as an example of a supposed supernatural thing that interacts with this universe. Since we have conversation laws, something that interacts with this universe has to be of this universe. So that means it is not supernatural. See the conflict? And, of course, we still haven’t breached that wall of zero proof for the supernatural that exists, so discussions of ghosts or deities or anything else is an exercise in futility until we prove they exist in the first place…

[Btw, there are demons and familiar spirits, but not ghosts of the dead.]

Great! Prove demons and familiar spirits exist then.

[Your claim is baseless that my claim is baseless. We can say that back and forth all day, but neither makes it so. The incredible specified complexity, synergy, and irreducible complexity of all living things is a huge basis for what I claim.]

All it takes to falsify my assertion that your claim is baseless is one single shred of proof for the supernatural. Got any? Not yet. I see you posted those two classic unfounded creationist favorites – specified complexity and irreducible complexity – which are apparently a “huge basis” for what you claim. That’s a shame, because they have both been shown to be unsound. Demski’s specified complexity has been shown to be mathematically wrong. He misused probability and statistical methods, and he hasn’t even published most of the math he claimed he did. He got spanked in court years ago in some case in Pennsylvania that was about teaching ID in schools. Scientists destroyed his bacterium flagellum claim to the point of embarrassment. Behe, the irreducible complexity guy, got spanked in the same trial trying to use the same flagellum as evidence of a designer. His stuff has the same problems as Demski. Their claims and other false synergetic nonsense have no basis in mathematics, science, information theory, etc. If that is what you’re basing your claim on, then your claim is easily refuted.

[Here you are just being dishonest or a tiny big ignorant. All science starts with a belief. What do you think an hypothesis is? It is a scientist’s belief on how something works that he has yet to test or prove. And last time I checked, even the big bang theory still has opponents, opposing theories, and a considerably long list of problems that are unresolved. Thus there is still a belief aspect. To deny that is dishonest.]

Do a simple google check on the scientific method. I recommend double-checking the stuff you pull from creation.com. The method starts with observations, not a belief. The observations may happen as a result of a question, such as “Why do apples fall to the Earth and not go up?”, but before any hypothesis is formed there has to be observation. Your entire paragraph above strayed off topic anyway. My response of “Every single scientific finding is open for review and verification by anyone at anytime. You do not have to accept a single thing done by others” was in response to your statement that “there is a great deal of faith/belief involved in accepting a purely naturalistic explanation for everything as well”. We were talking about the end product (finding, explanation) and you start talking the paragraph above about the start of the process, not the end. Regardless of which end we discuss, it takes data and evidence to arrive at a scientific conclusion, and you can double check every single bit of it.

As for the Big Bang theory, I completely agree that it is a theory in progress. Most people agree the theory as it currently stands will not be the final version of it. It is still however the best theory that fits the information we have. But you are completely inaccurate to state that there is a “belief” aspect to it. To be accurate here allow me to throw out some definition. Belief in a religious or dogmatic context is acceptance of something without evidence or data to back it up. A believer in god accepts that it exists, without doubt. “Belief” in science is more accurately described as “think”, as in we think the Big Bang is the best theory to describe the beginning of the universe. A scientist may THINK they know why the Gaussian distribution of the cosmic background radiation differs from what the Big Bang theory predicts, and they try to gather data and determine if they are right or not. Nothing is accepted without data and evidence, like a religious belief system. Everything is doubted unless no exception can be found that varies from what they think. Completely different situation than when a cultist “believes”.

[Note how I’ve corrected your use of science as an entity again. You need to watch that one. You are making a logical fallacy but implying that anyone who doesn’t believe secular scientific conclusions is not a scientist. You may be surprised to know that Sir Isaac Newton, for example, was a God believing, creationist. Who would deny that he was a scientist. You?]

I’ve implied nothing of the sort. Frankly I can’t even begin to comprehend how you arrived at such a conclusion. I’ve never said, overtly or otherwise, that science is a secular institution. A study of 1200 scientists recently showed that about 50% were religious or believers in something. Does that mean that they can’t follow the scientific method and reach logical conclusions? Of course not. Some of the biggest findings in science have been done by people that believed in the supernatural. There is no requirement in the scientific method that someone be Christian, atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, white, black, young, old, male, female, heterosexual, or any other limitation you can think of. All it cares about is that the scientific method is rigorously followed when observing and gathering data and objectively testing and verifying it to determine the true nature of things. There have been tens of thousands of scientists that tested and validated the theory of evolution for the last 150 years. Plenty of them were religious people. Their personal belief has nothing to do with their professional results. It’s actually kind of ironic how much religious dogma and supernatural belief has been debunked by the work of theist scientists…

[Correct. And this is where we get back to the belief factor. Without evidence of where it came from, you only have a belief that it happened at all. It’s an idea about what might have been and there are numerous problems with the theory. It’s not a settled matter.]

I agree. I’ve never claimed otherwise. Things like the CMB were predicted to exist if a singularity did, and indeed the CMB has been found. But there are other theories that also have mathematical or quantum mechanics support, like branes and string theory. It is all definitely a work in progress.

[There was a recent competing theory of the origins of the universe from the secular world I might add, that involved a kind of white hole cosmology, quite different from the big bang. And the paper is published and passed peer review. If that theory were correct then everything you think you know about the big bang would be overturned. And not even by creation scientists]

White hole cosmology is the product of Russell Humphrey I believe. It requires the reversal of time and of the law of entropy, which are quantum-ly impossible. The math is full of errors and he got special relativity wrong. It was published in a book, not a peer reviewed process. I don’t know of anyone else publishing on the topic personally. If you have a name or title please pass it along. Unless there is something different than “Starlight and Time”, the idea he proposed is dead.

[Neither does it make allowance for the fatal flaws in the theory. They are still there. Are you really trying to tell me that you don’t know that there are problems with the big bang theory that are unresolved? That you think every piece of the puzzle is absolutely settled? Be honest.]

If there were “fatal” flaws in the theory it would not be considered a scientific theory anymore. As stated earlier I agree it is not perfect or complete, and is a work in progress. Got any explanation that is better? Let’s see the evidence…

[Indeed. And so far, the theory of evolution (microbes to man) has not checked out at all. As I pointed out with the Dr. Ainsley Chalmers quote and before with the DNA requires DNA video by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati. Those, in fact, settle the matter against evolution, unless you only consider evolution to be adaptation and speciation.]

The Chamlers quote I believe I handled in another post. His dataless opinion settles nothing. The Sarfati clip I’ve seen before. His comments are generalized and, like Chalmers, devoid of data. He talks about modern genetic setup as if that is what the first life forms had. No one working on the issue thinks life started with full strands of DNA. I’m not sure what his point is since he is talking about something that has no basis in current research. Of course either one of these guys could simply produce just one single solitary scrap of data that shows DNA was designed intelligently, or that a divine creature exists, and prove that it could happen magically. Naturally we receive nothing on that end, don’t we…

[If it happened 14.6 billion years ago and current evidence doesn’t align perfectly with expected data and no one was there to see any of those 14.6 billion years, how can you make such an absurd claim?]

Because the anomalies don’t refute the Big Bang. They don’t change the fact that the universe is expanding, or that there is CBM. The theory will need to be tweaked, but these issues are not fatal flaws. That is why it is a work in progress.

I wrote: “Who says they had to come from anywhere?” [Pretty much everyone except you apparently.]

Hardly. No one is exactly sure where they come from. There is plenty of thinking and speculation and so forth about where they come from, but no one will tell you they HAD to come from something. They may very well just be an accident, or just a property of this particular universe.

[Interesting position since that’s exactly what you’re trying to tell me. That “science” can explain everything. What I’ve actually said is that “science” can’t explain everything.]

Once again I am unable to see how you decided something. I won’t bother to ask where you got that from, because I definitely never said it, and I certainly don’t believe it. In reality neither you nor I can state with any accuracy what, if any, limitations science has on what it can explain. As it relates to your last sentence, I suspect you want to state that so you can apply a limit to the scientific method and therefore create a kind of barrier from being able to prove divine creatures exist. Believers like to say science can’t prove everything and use that as justification for their argument from ignorance claim that the thing they worship can’t be explained or discovered…

[Actually, there are some pretty good mathematical guesses on just what the probability would be if we consider our universe and assume a big bang. It is some ridiculous number that far exceeds even the number of atoms in the entire universe. Look it up.]

That’s been debunked for years. Like your boy Sarfati, the person who calculated that used a modern genome for the calculations that gave odds on life starting at 10^390 or something like that for a 300 amino acid long protein. I’ve seen this nonsense many times before. Since this is not at all representative of what is thought or being worked on, it is garbage. Peptides 32 amino acids long still form at hydrothermal vents today, and actually self replicate. They aren’t alive mind you, it is just a property of the molecule. And it’s not the only one that does that. These peptides could easily form over and over in an ocean full of aminos bumping into each other millions of times a day for 730 million years (when life first appeared). I’ve implored you to try looking into these things yourself, but I see you are still beholden to your creationist masters…

[I love this reasoning simply because it’s so funny. That’s like someone asking you how you survived the holocaust and you say “If I hadn’t survived the holocaust, then I wouldn’t be here to tell you about it.” It explains nothing. Cute though.]

That comment was specifically made in response to your seeing this universe as “perfect” for us and the chance of it existing as is “incredibly remote”. It wasn’t meant to explain how the universe came to be, but to point out the false logic of trying to state the odds of this universe being the way it is since that can only be done IF it is the way it is. You have no idea if the universe could have been different, if this is the only one that will ever be, or what other life might be possible given a different set of circumstances. There are no “incredible odds” given the incredible lack of information needed to calculate those odds…

[Anyway, we say that God is eternal. Eternal is a state of being not a quantity. And infinity is a fictional quantity]

Eternal means forever. It means infinite. Eternal things have no beginning or end. And that poses a logical problem. How does something eternal ever arrive to this point in time? There is no middle of infinity Tommy, so an eternal being can’t possibly get to now to perform miracles. It’s nonsense.

[I think you would have to have a lot more scientific knowledge to make that claim. I know “of” this, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the matter was created and destroyed. Perhaps it pops in and out of various dimensional spaces. In any event, it’s matter that is somewhere in some dimension. So, where did it come from and why was it there to begin with. Let me know when you can wrap your head around that.]

Prove that it is matter in some other dimension then. You could be entirely right, but simply stating that doesn’t make it any more true than me saying it’s because of leprechauns. Like the universe itself, matter popping in and out of existence is just parts of nothing splitting up and getting back together again. You’d have to wrap your head around quantum fluctuations and quantum field theory for more detail

[That is merely hypotheses and no where near proved. The only reason that’s believed is because we can’t account for all the matter/energy in the universe that isn’t observed. Perhaps that mysterious energy is God upholding his creation.]

See Hawkins book “Grand Design” for starters. Michio Kiku is another one. The universe has zero spin, zero charge, and zero energy. It has been calculated.

[True, and yet not one of those relies on evolution or the big bang being fact. Name one scientific invention that depended on the theory of evolution or it couldn’t have been created. Take the challenge.]

Just about everything in the medical field has evolutionary implications in it. Flu vaccines, antibiotics, drug-resistance, genetic diseases, etc.

[Dissent from Darwin]

Very impressive. About 1000 people have signed that eh? Check out the Steve Project. Over 1300 scientists named Steve who find the theory of evolution to be a valid scientific field. Not Bob’s or Mike’s or Paul’s….just Steve’s. Over 99% of the scientific community, professionally trained and educate people, find the theory of evolution to be a valid scientific theory. That kind of agreement is amazing…

[Here you appeal to a majority.]

That was not my point. My point is that the scientific method is a nearly universally accepted method of determining the true nature of things. Even when people aren’t consciously aware of it, they trust the scientific method everyday. You know anyone who doesn’t cross a bridge because they haven’t verified some scientific theory? Of course not.

I was going to reply to some of the posts that Tommy made that I never got around to addressing, but I’m not sure he is even coming around anymore. If you are still out there Tommy let me know, otherwise I don’t know that I will spend the time responding to something that you will never read…

Post navigation

About

Have a question for an atheist? Ever wonder what atheists think about morality, faith, science, etc.? How do atheists live their lives without a god? How do they know right from wrong? Are they just angry at god? Do they really NOT believe?

Hopefully this site will give you all of the answers you are looking for and more. Asktheatheist.com is a joint project where all atheists are encouraged to answer questions in either text, audio, or video formats. Think you have a better way to explain it ? Share it with everyone! The idea is to have a variety of answers for each question, and thus find a variety of ways to open people up to understanding atheism and atheists.